We know a missile brought the aircraft [TWA800] down. - Page 3

Duvidoo · 06-03-2008, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titanium Cat

Renee May called and talked to her mother from Flight 77. Is her mother in on the conspiracy that killed her daughter?

Where is she mentioned in the posted article?

Titanium Cat · 06-03-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

Where is she mentioned in the posted article?

It doesn't.

But since the article is full of bullshit (and unsourced), I'd like to start with some of the more easily pinpointed events. Renee May's call to her mother is one of them.

Titanium Cat · 06-03-2008, 08:46 AM

David Ray Griffin is full of shit when he makes these statements:

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Of course we know the airphones in 757's were operational on 9/11. Airphones were used on Flight 77 and extensively on Flight 93.

Griffin is blantantly lying about the second part:

"FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone."

The FBI did not make such a conclusion. There were four "connected calls to unknown numbers" which the FBI concluded were between Barbara Olson and her husband's office.

Ptech · 06-03-2008, 02:44 PM

TC

However much energy was generated by that collapse, it was not enough to pulverize virtually all the concrete in the structures. It was not enough to melt tires on vehicles and blister their paint off. It was not enough to create molten steel puddles that lasted for many days.

Something else generated that energy, and in your state of denial, you find it most unpleasant to understand that. Which is a personal problem.

Every swinging dick at Shanksville, including the coroner, said there was nothing there. No bodies, no baggage, no airplane.

Yet you create bodies out of thin air.

It was a magnificent deception honey. I bought it for 4 years, and you for 6 and counting. That's nothing to brag about in public.

Titanium Cat · 06-03-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ptech

TC

Ahhh Ptech

Quote:

However much energy was generated by that collapse, it was not enough to pulverize virtually all the concrete in the structures.

You don’t even have a clue as to how much energy was released in the collapse, how would you know if it wasn’t enough?

Quote:

It was not enough to melt tires on vehicles and blister their paint off. It was not enough to create molten steel puddles that lasted for many days.

Wow, so says the Physics major Ptech, the originator of the infamous “Steel wins every time”.

Quote:

Something else generated that energy,

Yet you provide no proof for this additional source of energy. What a surprise!

Quote:

and in your state of denial,

and in your state of utter confusion,

Quote:

you find it most unpleasant to understand that. Which is a personal problem.

You’re the one who has a personal problem especially if you consider being dumber than a bag of hammers a personal problem.

Quote:

Every swinging dick at Shanksville, including the coroner, said there was nothing there. No bodies, no baggage, no airplane.

Yet another pile of bullshit that spews from the orifice called Ptech. As usual Ptech provides ZERO evidence for its idiotic claims.

Quote:

Yet you create bodies out of thin air.

Yet you make wild claims out of thin air and never back them up.

Quote:

It was a magnificent deception honey. I bought it for 4 years, and you for 6 and counting. That's nothing to brag about in public.

You make a complete fool of yourself in public and I’m sure that you’ve been doing it for longer than 6 years.

Ptech · 06-03-2008, 06:53 PM

What I mentioned in the last post is common knowledge to anybody who has spent more than a few days studying the evidence.

That you are unaware of them demonstrates only your ignorance.

That you are aware of them but unable to reconcile them demonstrates your cognitive dissonance.

Which is it?

Titanium Cat · 06-03-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ptech

What I mentioned in the last post is common knowledge to anybody who has spent more than a few days studying the evidence.

Common "knowledge" to truthers who haven't a clue as to what real evidence is.

Quote:

That you are unaware of them demonstrates only your ignorance.

In other words, once again, you can't provide a link. How quaint.

Quote:

That you are aware of them but unable to reconcile them demonstrates your cognitive dissonance.

Oooooo, those are some pretty big words from someone who couldn't pass a grade 8 science test.

Quote:

Which is it?

It's you blabbing away without being able to provide an ounce of evidence to support your claims.

Duvidoo · 06-04-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titanium Cat

Common "knowledge" to truthers who haven't a clue as to what real evidence is.

I love it that you guys own the franchise of all "real" evidence when Bush claimed no investigation was needed based on having close to zero "hard and fast" evidence. To this day nobody has proved that Osama bin Laden actually had anything to do with 9/11. And the lack of any headway being made bringing the so-called perpetrator of 9/11 to justice merely clinches it that they really have no proof (other than circumstantial evidence ... circumstantial ain't real until it's been proven).

eagleclaw · 06-04-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

I love it that you guys own the franchise of all "real" evidence when Bush claimed no investigation was needed based on having close to zero "hard and fast" evidence. To this day nobody has proved that Osama bin Laden actually had anything to do with 9/11. And the lack of any headway being made bringing the so-called perpetrator of 9/11 to justice merely clinches it that they really have no proof (other than circumstantial evidence ... circumstantial ain't real until it's been proven).

Why is the all the burden of proof on us when the oppostion hasn't provided any proof that the main culprit had anything to do with it?

xav8terx · 06-04-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

Why is the all the burden of proof on us when the oppostion hasn't provided any proof that the main culprit had anything to do with it?

It's easier for them to throw their "truther" tag line out that way. If they were busy proving what THEY claim they wouldn't be able to spend so much time backing up this administration's lack of evidence....weird i know.

06-03-2008, 02:44 PM	#24 (permalink)
Ptech Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Pierce FL Posts: 1,168 Thanks: 32 Thanked 23 Times in 21 Posts	TC However much energy was generated by that collapse, it was not enough to pulverize virtually all the concrete in the structures. It was not enough to melt tires on vehicles and blister their paint off. It was not enough to create molten steel puddles that lasted for many days. Something else generated that energy, and in your state of denial, you find it most unpleasant to understand that. Which is a personal problem. Every swinging dick at Shanksville, including the coroner, said there was nothing there. No bodies, no baggage, no airplane. Yet you create bodies out of thin air. It was a magnificent deception honey. I bought it for 4 years, and you for 6 and counting. That's nothing to brag about in public.
	Top

06-03-2008, 06:53 PM	#26 (permalink)
Ptech Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Pierce FL Posts: 1,168 Thanks: 32 Thanked 23 Times in 21 Posts	What I mentioned in the last post is common knowledge to anybody who has spent more than a few days studying the evidence. That you are unaware of them demonstrates only your ignorance. That you are aware of them but unable to reconcile them demonstrates your cognitive dissonance. Which is it?
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode